[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Wed Oct 9 21:09:30 UTC 2013

What Chip said :)

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> Patience, please.
>
> If you'll recall, this matter was discussed at some length already in this
> very mail-list. I've raised the issue further. No action will be taken one
> way or another, until the admins receive some clarification.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Design 311 <hello at design311.com> wrote:
>
>>  So, what happens now with PageLines?
>> It gets removed from the directory?
>>
>>  *Design 311*
>> E-mail: *hello at design311.com*
>> Tel: *+32 478 91 67 89*
>> Website: *http://design311.com*
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Trent Lapinski
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 10:18PM
>> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.
>> *Cc:*
>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage
>>
>>  We just received confirmation from the GNU (
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html) that DMS paid features
>> are NOT GPL compatible due to usage limitations (
>> http://www.pagelines.com/pricing/).
>>
>> This issue has continually been swept under the rug and now we have
>> irrefutable confirmation that there is a valid GPL issue with PageLines
>> usage licenses and limitations.
>>
>> This isn't personal, this is about protecting the community and most
>> importantly, the users from unethical business practices. This is our duty
>> as a Theme Review Team and in this case, we've failed miserably.
>>
>> *These are the facts:
>> *
>> • The GPL applies to both the copyright holder, and users.
>> • DMS (Paid Version) violates the GPL according to the GNU (see official
>> clarification from the GNU below).
>> • DMS (Paid Version) thus violates WordPress.org Guidelines and Policy
>> yet DMS (Free Version) was still approved anyway despite these concerns
>> being raised multiple times by the community.
>>
>> *We can all agree on the WP guidelines:
>> *
>> "Commercial versions of free Themes (i.e. “freemium” or “up-sell” Themes)
>> are required to be released under GPL-compatible licenses"
>>
>> Source:
>> http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-license-theme-name-c…<http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-license-theme-name-credit-links-up-sell-themes/>
>>
>> *It has always been **WordPress.org* <http://wordpress.org/>* Policy
>> that themes or plugins or their pro versions that **are not 100% GPL
>> compatible are not allowed on **WordPress.org* <http://wordpress.org/>*.*
>>
>> However, we have not been able to all agree on the GPL, so here it is,
>> irrefutably, from the GNU themselves so there's no longer any confusion:
>>
>> *Question:*
>>
>> "1. There are 3 licensing options for how many sites you're allowed to
>> use the software on, 1, 6 or unlimited. It's always been my understanding
>> that you cannot restrict usage at all. That once the code is in the user's
>> hands they're free to use it on as many websites as they need, both for
>> personal and commercial sites."
>>
>> *GNU Response:
>> *
>> "That is correct, the user is free to install, copy, and share as much as
>> they like. Sometimes, however, companies offering service/support will word
>> their plans in such a way that it appears that you are limited, when in
>> fact, it is only that their service/support is limited to a certain number
>> of installs. For example, they could offer hosted GPLed software and the
>> limit is actually on the number of hosted instances."
>>
>> *Question:*
>>
>> "2. There is no option to outright buy the software. You're forced into
>> monthly fees and if you stop payment at any time (meaning that you're
>> suppose to pay forever) the "pro" features of the software are crippled.
>> It's my understanding that a developer cannot put such restrictions in
>> place or force a user to pay for the same software more than once."
>>
>> *GNU Response:
>> *
>> "This is also correct, there cannot be any ongoing restriction such as
>> this. Again, however, sometimes companies can be misleading about what is
>> restricted. There can also be instances where there is GPLed software
>> involved, but also proprietary software which they can restrict.
>> Determining whether a violation is occurring requires looking at the
>> actual facts involved in the case.
>>
>> With all that said, the GPL is a copyright license, and it is the
>> copyright holder who is empowered to enforce the terms of the license.
>> Sometimes companies will nominally release GPL software, but fail to live
>> up to its terms. As long as they are the sole copyright holder, there is no
>> one with the power to force them to change their wrongful ways. There are
>> other ways to gain compliance, however. Even if they can't be forced by law
>> to follow the terms, people can still send in requests, publicly call them
>> out for their bad practices, or even campaign against them for being bad
>> community members."
>>
>> *Conclusion:
>> *
>> PageLines “service” is NOT a GPL compatible Software As A Service
>> business model since PageLines does not host the customers websites. Their
>> “service” is not just a support either since it uses software and an API to
>> limit usage and features to sell variably priced non-GPL compatible usage
>> licenses.
>>
>> It was argued by some admins that the GPL only applies to users, and not
>> the copyright holder but that is simply not true according to the GNU.
>> While there is no "GPL police" we do have the choice as a community to call
>> this out for what it is, which is a clever marketing scheme designed to
>> supersede the rights of users, the GPL, and WPORG policy.
>>
>>  Are we really going to continue to reward and promote these kind of
>> deceptive business practices on WordPress.org?
>>
>> This issue requires actual action be taken immediately as this is no
>> longer a discussion open to interpretation.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> --Trent Lapinski
>> =============
>> CEO of CyberChimps Inc
>> trent at cyberchimps.com
>> Twitter @trentlapinski
>> http://CyberChimps.com <http://cyberchimps.com/>
>>
>>  On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
>>
>>  Thanks Bryan, we appreciate your efforts!
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  This isn't an empty discussion, no discussion is ever empty, knowledge
>>> is power. "Moving on" from a discussion that has come to no reasonable
>>> understanding whatsoever is what is less than ideal.
>>>
>>>  I've actually bumped this issue up to a WP foundation lawyer (who I
>>> actually spoke with) and Matt to hopefully get some sort of officially
>>> ruling on this otherwise stalemate issue. I'll let you guys know if I hear
>>> back.
>>>
>>>  Thanks
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20131009/e0ee272c/attachment-0001.html>